- From: Peter Evans <evans@i.hosei.ac.jp>
- Date: Tue, 06 Mar 2001 18:17:21 +0900
- To: html-tidy@w3.org
[Now featuring a laborious but less misleading title!] On renaming, Max Moritz Sievers: > Then I have to change every script in which tidy occurs. Well, first I had the Windows rather than the Linux binary in mind. But secondly I didn't intend to suggest renaming the binary, but instead renaming the package (.ZIP file, etc.) in which it was distributed. (As I reread my message, it does seem a bit unclear; and my title was very misleading. Sorry about that.) J. David Bryan (whom I thank for his tolerance of my ignorance): > Versioning an archive containing the executable would, > perhaps, be helpful in ensuring that the current version > was downloaded. . . . I think so. Moreover, while I don't think dates are inherently easier to remember than version numbers -- after all, most of us have been talking of dates since we were barely out of our prams -- I for one find it easier to remember that the version I use of Becky is 2.00 whereas the one I use of Tidy is, um, well. . . . > However, one advantage to distributing the executable directly, > instead of encapsulated in an archive, is that it does not > require the presence of, e.g., WinZip on the user's Win32 platform. > The program is ready to run once downloaded. Very true, but I think everyone who's willing to use a console-mode program with a plethora of switches -- surely well under 20% of the world population of Windows-using drones! -- is happy with the .ZIP format. Moreover, there are free alternatives to WinZIP. (As for me, I'm equally happy with .gz or any of a host of alternatives.) -- Peter Evans <evans@i.hosei.ac.jp>
Received on Tuesday, 6 March 2001 04:19:01 UTC